Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that many previous postgraduates who may have spent some time here and then returned to their own country have been an extremely valuable investment for our country because of the relations that have been established and not because of the heights to which they have risen in their own country thereafter? At a time when it is claimed that America is attracting all the best postgraduates, does the Minister recognise the importance and enormous potential value of bringing bright people to this country, where they may develop an affection and understanding of this country?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recognise that that is the Second Reading speech. If she were in the other place it would be defined as such, and at this stage in a Bill it would be ruled out of order. Today we are discussing a very late stage of the Bill; we are not at the Second Reading stage with regard to airports policy. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to allow me to concentrate on the specific issues before us today under the Commons amendments.
	Charges are not the only lever—or even in the case of aircraft noise, the most significant one—that we will expect aircraft operators to use to address the impact of their operations on local people. The provisions of Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill can do far more to drive improvements in the noise climate around airports. They will enable the operators of designated airports to charge penalties for breaches of the noise control measures the Secretary of State specifies. That is the impact of Clause 3. Clause 4 will empower the operators of non-designated airports to set up noise control schemes and to charge penalties for breaches. Of course, the revenue raised from those penalties will then be put to the benefit to the wider community.
	I would argue that it simply would not be appropriate to impose a legal duty on all licensed aerodromes to impose noise-related charges. Such a move would be entirely disproportionate when many of these aerodromes are small in size and cause little or no significant disturbance. Indeed this would run contrary to International Civil Aviation Organisation's guidance that noise-related charges should be levied only at airports experiencing noise problems. I would also remind the House of the Government's policy to do all they can to avoid unnecessary regulation.
	The essential aim of Clause 1 is to provide clear statutory powers for airports to fix their charges by reference to aircraft emissions as well as noise. In fact the British Airports Authority already has an emissions-related charge at Heathrow and Gatwick—using its conditions of use—but the Government believe that it is important that there are clear powers for all licensed aerodromes to do so, should their local circumstances make it necessary.
	As in the case of noise, there is not a case for imposing an obligation on all licensed aerodromes to impose an emissions-related charge. Given that the vast majority of aerodromes are not at risk of breaching air quality limits, it would be totally unjustified to impose such a widespread burden.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend has greater powers of recollection than I and was more directly involved in these issues. The House will recognise that he is an authority on these matters and I am sure that what he says is broadly true. However, we made a promise in The Future of Air Transport White Paper to bring forward legislation enabling the Secretary of State to require an emissions-related element to be introduced, which is exactly what this Bill does.
	Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 would, as I am sure noble Lords will recall, affect the way in which noise and emission charges should be set. The Government of course agree that it is entirely reasonable to expect airport operators to set appropriate noise charges. Again, not to do so would be at odds with ICAO guidance that noise related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be established at such levels as to be prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft.
	The Government are unconvinced that this is something that needs to be placed in the Bill. I can only repeat that airports have been making use of the power to set noise-related charges for nearly 25 years and there has been no suggestion that they have not done so in an appropriate or proportionate way. I recognise that there will be some disappointment among some noble Lords at the Government's position. I appreciate the particular interest that the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, takes in these measures, given her former relationship to a constituency so close to London Heathrow.
	Let me make it absolutely clear that should there ever appear to be a problem with the charging scheme, the Secretary of State has the power to direct an airport operator as to the manner in which the charges are to be fixed. It is not a question of powers and legislation but of choice with regard to policy. We will continually debate policy with regard to airports; they are destined always to be a controversial issue. However, we are discussing today an amendment to legislation, and I do not believe that noble Lords should sustain their position on their amendments. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 1A, 2A and 4A.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
	{**NM**}

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have already indicated my interest in this matter. I also ought to say that I am president of the British Air Line Pilots Association.
	There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that has just been made that aircraft owners have a vested interest in inefficient aircraft. We have had plenty of experience of that significant issue, and no evidence to support that view has been forthcoming from the Liberal Democrats. I challenge the noble Earl to give us some evidence that the British Airports Authority ignores complaints that are made. Every single complaint made by people around the airport is taken notice of and acted on. That is the purpose of the committees to which my noble friend referred.
	It is very strange that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Opposition seem wedded to the idea of compulsion. Since when? The Liberal Democrats did not utter one word about compulsion beforehand, and I cannot recall the Conservatives doing so either. As my noble friend has said, measures to reduce environmental impact, as far as aircraft noise is concerned, have been available to airports on a voluntary basis for nearly a quarter of a century. The airports deal with it. They are aware that there is a problem. That is hardly surprising, because the voices of the people living around or near the airport are often heard, and rightly so. The local authorities are concerned about this issue as well, as they should be. It is no answer, however, to attack the airport authority willy-nilly for ignoring the protestations that are made.
	In my intervention, I sought to address the issue of international action where that is necessary. As my noble friend has said, all the BAA airports have used the power on a voluntary basis. Airport noise has to be considered. I can see no evidence for departing from that situation at the present moment. It is not as if somehow or other the airport authorities are oblivious to the case that is often made. It is the interests of people around the airport and all those employed at the airport that these issues should be ventilated, but in a proper way.
	The Bill extends the situation to which I have referred regarding aircraft noise to aircraft emissions as well. Why should we now insist on government compulsion? I find the Opposition's arguments on this wholly unconvincing. My noble friend has also referred to the powers in new Section 38(4) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which we are also likely to have before us shortly. In my view there is absolutely no evidence to support the conclusion that the Liberal Democrats, supported by the Conservatives, now seek to reach.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say to my noble friend that the opposition to this measure does not come only from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. There are also some people on this side of the House who have doubts about whether the Government are on the right track with this issue. However, I shall seek not to stray into Second Reading territory. I simply ask whether the Minister recognises that, notwithstanding the points that he made about the necessity for acting proportionately and for having balance in the argument, which I accept, the amount of research and information on the impact of noise pollution is growing at quite a rate. Nowadays, it is rare to go for a week, or sometimes a day, without seeing further evidence emerging of the damaging impact on individuals, the environment and communities of noise and carbon emission pollution.
	Therefore, I respectfully ask the Minister whether he recognises that it may not be a bad idea at this stage, given the rate at which our knowledge of these issues and awareness of the dangers that we face are growing, to have a little more strength in the way in which the regulation is effected with the airport owners than we have had in the past. I submit that it is not enough to say, "It has worked for 25 years, so why change it?" There are reasons why we need to take this matter more seriously than we have done before. There is good reason to suppose that a little more toughness might not go amiss at this stage.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I stand chided. I would never for one moment want to suggest that my noble friend did not have a breadth of interest. I have no doubt at all that in her altruistic way she will spread her message as widely as she can. But given that she has had experience of these issues in relation to Stansted, I merely say that we already have the relevant powers. The designation powers are already operated by the Secretary of State. It is quite clear that the great controversy which surrounds the expansion of Stansted airport is a reflection of a great deal of local involvement. Anybody who suggests that the local community was a pushover as regards expansion has never heard either my noble friend or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in other guises outside the House when they have contested these proposals.
	I maintain that what we are debating here is not the general issue of airport policy or a Second Reading of a Bill in which anything goes, but whether this legislation is—I almost made a slip of the tongue and said "fit for purpose"—appropriate and meets the requirements for regulating airports. Clearly, the Liberal Democrat amendment adds nothing to the powers that the Government already enjoy and, indeed, use.
	{**NM**}

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, it is not for me to interpret the words of the Secretary of State in terms of petty mischief-making, but I think a number of us shared a certain irritation yesterday when there was a playing with words. The word "audit", for example, was excised from the Bill and replaced with another word, which causes a whole series of repercussive changes—consequential changes—throughout the Bill. If I can divine the meaning, in a very humble way, of what the Secretary of State was saying in that press release, perhaps he was referring not to some of the other measures that this House passed but to "audit", which seemed to be a rather arbitrary and, in my judgment, very wrong use of the power of this place.
	In respect of this amendment and the general question, I think I am with the Government on it, but the Government should give a reply to the concerns raised in the other place by the Father of the House, the right honourable Member for Swansea West. Essentially, he argues that by this device and by not having the additional safeguard of parliamentary endorsement, which is part of this amendment, the Government are moving towards a primary legislative position step by step. To move totally to a primary legislative power for the Welsh Assembly on the lines of the Scottish Parliament would be a major change in the rules of the game and a major change from what the people of Wales only just agreed in the referendum. Only 50 per cent of the electorate in Wales bothered to vote in spite of the Government, after a major election victory, campaigning strongly for it. The result was 25 per cent "for", 25 per cent "against". That was not part of the package put before the people of Wales in the referendum. Nevertheless, one could conceive of a position where the Government, or a future Government, would by a series of small steps avoid the "big bang" of a referendum. That danger has been put expressed very eloquently in the other place by the Father of the House and I think it deserves a considered reply. Although I am minded to support the Government, I would be grateful to know how the Government seek to respond to that very genuine concern.

Lord Rowlands: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for mentioning my membership of the Richard commission. The commission indeed recommended that there should ultimately be a full transfer of primary powers, but also recognised that there would be a long interim period, not of months but years. It explored the possibilities of enhanced legislative powers being given to the Assembly in that interim period, so that it could exercise them before the possible transfer of primary powers, subject to a referendum and the rest of it.
	We did not consider the particular device contained in Part 3; we looked at other forms, like framework legislation. But I find Part 3 satisfying in that it deals with and offers, in this period of whatever length, the opportunity for the Assembly to have enhanced competencies. I therefore support Part 3, and certainly do not support the Opposition's amendment. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand how either House could possibly decide by a vote, affirmative or otherwise, on a measure that they had no part in developing.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Amendment No. 38 and all the other amendments in its line seek to remove Part 3 from the Bill. I spoke at some length on this matter in Committee on 3 May, at cols. 519 to 521 and 530 to 533 of Hansard. My mind has remained unchanged since then, so I need do no more than summarise what I said on that occasion.
	There are four reasons why this part should be removed. The first is a drafting reason, the second concerns the lack of a referendum, the third relates to the minimised involvement of your Lordships' House and another place and the fourth concerns the degree of discretion that is transferred from Part 3 to the Secretary of State.
	I can deal with the first point very briefly. As I said in the discussion on the first amendment, the structure of Part 3 seems entirely illogical. The natural process is, first, for authority to be delegated by Parliament to the Welsh Assembly to do certain things additional to those that it does at the moment; and, secondly, when it has that general authority, to enact particular measures that conform to the delegated powers.
	Your Lordships may think that that is the way in which Part 3 ought to be set out—but not a bit of it. Part 3 starts in Clause 92 with stage 2 and making Welsh Assembly measures. It then goes back in Clause 94 to the act of delegating the authority to legislate to the Welsh Assembly and, at the end, comes back again to Assembly measures. My minimal requirement is for the Government to go away at this stage and reorder the clauses in Part 3 so that the Bill can make more sense to the electorate. I challenge anyone to understand before they have read it at least three times. It is plain throughout the deliberations in another place that as many interventions were made on the basis of misunderstanding as on the basis of true understanding—and that applies to government Ministers as well as to Back Benchers.
	My second reason for removing the part is the absence of a referendum. We have said repeatedly from these Benches that we would be entirely content for Part 4 of the Bill to become operative following a referendum. We would far prefer that Part 4 formed the basis of Welsh devolution than Part 3. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that I would prefer Part 4 to form the basis of Welsh devolution without a referendum than Part 3. I am not very well disposed towards referendums, as I think that they undermine the system of representative democracy in this country. But the fact of the matter is that the powers of the Welsh Assembly were originally devolved following a referendum; and I do not see how a further act of devolution can be undertaken without a further referendum.
	These points were well canvassed in another place. Mr Ainger, the Minister in another place, said with complete openness and frankness that the reason why the Government had not contemplated a referendum was that they knew that they were not going to win it. Mr Ainger based his approach to the absence of the need for a referendum with respect to Part 3 on the manifesto; but there is nothing in the manifesto to indicate that Part 3 was in the Government's mind before the election. There was a debate about devolution, but that was entirely limited to the proposals put forward by the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. In short, the absence of a referendum ought to be fatal to Part 3.
	Then there is the third issue of parliamentary involvement. We have already looked at that in some detail when considering Amendment No. 36A and I do not wish to say any more about it, as it is a matter on which your Lordships' House has already voted. The fact is that there is no parliamentary involvement in stage 2. As for stage 1, under the Bill there is the same parliamentary involvement as in the making of any Order in Council. Parliament has a short opportunity to debate, with no opportunity to amend, followed by a take-it-or-leave-it vote. That seems entirely unsatisfactory when one considers the monumental constitutional consequences of what we are doing in Part 3.
	The Government to some extent recognised this in another place when they suggested a pre-legislative process involving perhaps both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee. Mr Ainger foreshadowed the possibility that amendments by these committees would be seriously considered by the Welsh Assembly in considering the final draft of the Order in Council; but at no stage will Parliament have any opportunity to amend the draft Assembly measure for adding to the fields contained in Schedule 5. Moreover, at no stage have the Government given any indication that they might allow Parliament to amend that draft Order in Council. This is wholly unsatisfactory, given the scale of the issues that the Bill confronts.
	Finally, the Government's rhetoric suggests that this is a big transfer of powers from one Parliament to another; but that is far from the case, as one sees when one grapples with the detail of the Bill. The real shift in power is from this Parliament to the Executive and the Secretary of State. We have already seen, in the second stage process under Part 3, that the Secretary of State can under Clause 100 intervene to prevent a Welsh Assembly measure, properly passed by the Welsh Assembly under clear delegated authority under Schedule 5, from being considered by the Privy Council. As for the first stage devolution, the Secretary of State has wide powers to prevent the draft Order in Council from going to Buckingham Palace.
	We consider any one of these considerations to be sufficiently powerful to ask the House to excise Part 3 from the Bill. In our view, all four of them make out of a case of the greatest cogency. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the amendment relates immediately to the relationship: the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and the Government are putting forward Part 3 as an alternative partly because of the total divide within the Welsh Parliamentary Labour Party on the issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out. Therefore, this Machiavellian device—"device" is the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Richard—was advanced as a solution. That is what we are debating. As has been accepted in almost every part of the House, it is deeply unsatisfactory. In Committee, I quoted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, when he pointed out on a number of occasions the flaws in Part 3, so I need not do so again. In my view, Part 3 is a Machiavellian and unsatisfactory solution.
	The point that I was going to make and the reason why it is so relevant, following the points that I have made about the views of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, is that, while I sympathise with his position, I firmly and fundamentally believe that the Welsh people should be allowed a vote to decide whether they want to go down the route to home rule. If they do, I will, as I have made clear, wholly support them in doing so. Indeed, my position is like that of my noble friend on the Front Bench, which is that, if we were not being offered a referendum, I would infinitely prefer that solution to the one that we are being offered in Part 3.
	Part 3 is wholly unsatisfactory. It is a dishonest solution. That is why I will be supporting my noble friend on this amendment. One of my reasons for making these points at this stage is the response of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to an earlier amendment, in which he tried to argue that because we are against Part 3, we are against devolution. The fact of the matter is that a vote for our amendment is not a vote against devolution; it is a vote in favour of honest devolution. I have faith in the Welsh Assembly and in its decision on when that vote should come. The obstacles that have been erected should not be put in its way. I have total confidence in the decision that will be made when that vote is taken by the Welsh people.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing this debate. I commend much of what he said. He and I are regular attendees of Plan UK's parliamentary breakfasts. I commend the work of Plan UK particularly on disaster risk reduction, which is no exception.
	Natural and man-made disasters occur regularly and without warning. Memories are often short, and once the television and newspaper reporting fades away, it is the local community that has to pick up the pieces to rebuild its community structures. We should also never underestimate the role of national and international governments and charities which provide the resources to make this possible. I certainly commend the work of our Government on this. They all ought to be congratulated.
	This debate is, however, about disaster risk reduction. There is a clear recognition that it is simply not enough to deal with the aftermath of disasters. We need to develop a clear focus on the potential impact of disasters before they happen. I have observed the devastation of earthquakes in the Gujarat region of India, and I have seen the devastation in the Kashmir region of the subcontinent. The memory of the tsunami is still with us. At issue is not that there is a foolproof way of predicting disasters, but that the deaths of thousands of people in such regions is unacceptable. That is where the whole international community must develop a strategy.
	The questions we must always pose are: how do we reduce the risk and vulnerability that affects large populations; and do we have a clear strategy on preparing communities for the worst? Of course we galvanise the international community for resources and support, but we need to develop a much more systematic way of dealing with disasters.
	Let us take the tsunami as an example. When I first heard the word "tsunami", I had to look at a number of references to find out what it really meant. I am sure that I was not the only one. I do not think that there was a state of preparedness for such a catastrophe. It was only after the event that nations of that region got together to set up a system to ensure that there was adequate warning in the future. Thousands lost their lives. The impact on children—as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rightly pointed out—has been devastating. Thousands of them, too, lost their lives. Plan International is clear that more children could have survived if they had had more information on disaster reduction and response. Research demonstrates that the active involvement of children in disaster risk reduction can mitigate the loss of life and assets resulting from disasters.
	A clear strategy is needed to ensure that these issues are addressed and to incorporate children's efforts and priorities into DfID's current work. The ultimate solution depends on local capacity, and past experiences confirm the importance of involving local communities and authorities. Wider development issues must take into account disaster risk reduction that encompass climate change, poverty planning and poverty reduction strategies. After all, the world's poorest are in the front line and suffer most. Plan International should be congratulated on giving a lead in this matter. I hope that many of its recommendations will be taken into account when such matters are dealt with.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for this important debate.
	Increasingly, I am glad to say, the aid and development community is prioritising the need to focus on the potential impact of disasters before they happen, recognising that while earthquakes in Kashmir are inevitable, over 70,000 deaths are not. It is certainly good to learn that DfID is at the forefront of this endeavour, and in particular that it will in future—we hope, certainly—give greater emphasis to children's need to be informed.
	In your Lordships' House, much recent legislation has concerned issues such as education or social care. In these debates, the UN rights of the child have been very much at the forefront of your Lordships' minds. Indeed, noble Lords have tried to get them into almost every Bill that has been debated. I refer especially to children's rights to be consulted and informed and to have their views heard on issues that directly concern them and their future well-being. I cannot think of any issue that requires such an approach more than the issue we are discussing today.
	Children often make up more than one-third of the death toll in disasters. The lives of a similar percentage are severely disrupted by separation or loss of family members or by disruption to education and the breakdown of communities. Like the other noble Lords who have spoken, I have attended a number of Plan gatherings. At the last one, we were told how it has documented countless examples of how the impact of natural hazards has been made much worse by poor governance, corruption and conflict. Above all, almost everywhere, children's specific needs are usually overlooked, because those needs are ignored during planning processes.
	Millions of children have survived natural and man-made disasters, but only to be made homeless, lose loved ones, receive injuries, experience violence, and suffer scarring psychological trauma. The central point is that many more children would survive disasters if they had more information and had learnt skills related to disaster, risk reduction and response. Initiatives involving children in that way not only benefit children themselves but also whole families and the wider community.
	Plan told us that it had been working in El Salvador with children's emergency committees, or brigades, following two devastating earthquakes in 2001. These children's committees perform key functions in their communities: drawing up risk and hazard maps, taking part in mitigation activities such as tree planting and environmental education, and mobilising in response situations. Plans says that the crucial lessons it has learnt in the past five years include the need to integrate a number of themes into disaster risk reduction work. In El Salvador, Plan has recognised that violence, environmental deterioration, children's rights and gender equity are part of the challenge of coping with disasters. As a result, it has provided support for the children's committees to address these issues in an integrated way.
	Above all, there is a need to work at the basic community level, developing planning and implementation structures that can respond to different local contexts within a country and even within a municipality. We must remember that no two communities face the same challenges, as Surestart has shown us.
	It is worth while drawing attention to one or two of the practical lessons that have been learnt. After Hurricane Mitch, consultation with children in El Salvador highlighted the fact that emergency shelters did not allow for division of space between girls and boys and that that created serious child protection risks for girls. Plans were redrawn based on the children's comments. After Hurricane Stan in El Salvador in 2005, Norma, a young woman from El Salvador, confirmed the importance of risk maps. She said:
	"Those risk maps helped us a lot! We knew exactly where the major risks were, what shortcuts we could take when the main road got blocked. We called Plan, the Santa Tecla City Hall, and the school principal to tell them what was happening because we knew they would help us. There were 18 children in our community between 10 and 17 years-old helping out and organising the evacuation".
	In the Asian tsunami of 2005, children in the El Cafetelon temporary shelter in El Salvador suffered from lack of space and security. They could not play, had no normal routine and family members were too stressed and shocked to care for them. They could not move safely around the shelters, and told of cases of attempted abduction and sexual abuse. However, it was possible to start applying the lessons learnt from these past experiences in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami.
	I will end there. However, the issues raised have caused me to look back to World War II. Many of us were evacuated to different parts of the country at that time, when parents and those looking after us were keen to develop our sense of self-preservation. Although that was enormously important, it also helped those of us who went through it to play a greater part in life later on. If we can do that for the children in the poorest parts of the world, I am sure that they will contribute a great deal more.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for your Lordships' House to examine an issue that by virtue of modern communications—satellite transmission and television—impacts on our daily lives all too frequently. The misfortune, misery and torment of communities, countries and even continents caught up in massive natural and man-made disasters are played out on televisions screens across the UK with depressing regularity. To their credit, the generosity of the response of our communities to disaster appeals is unequalled. The sums donated to the tsunami appeal are a matter of record. But as I stood on the street corner in my small Hampshire town not holding a tin but manning a bucket for Save the Children, that generosity was impressed upon me to great effect. Almost everyone who passed me gave, and almost everyone gave a note. Coins were passed to each child to donate as well. Therefore, in the aftermath of such generosity, it is not unreasonable for those who gave so readily to become uneasy at reports of cases of incompetence and even corruption in the delivery and distribution of disaster relief funds' aid, rescue and reconstruction services. That unease can be faced and those concerns can be addressed by better co-ordination, tighter controls and rigorous auditing, but the underlying issue is surely to address the preparedness to face the frequency, scale and devastation of the disasters.
	In the United Kingdom, global relief aid charities and NGOs, such as Plan International UK, Save the Children and so on, have become increasingly concerned about raising awareness of the need for disaster mitigation and preparedness. DfID, to its great credit, has increased levels of funding with more than £14 million committed to disaster risk reduction worldwide in the past 12 months. This is, perhaps unavoidably, a drop in the ocean. Nevertheless, it is important that DfID meets its commitment to,
	"increase the funding . . . to international efforts to reduce disaster risk; and . . . allocate 10 per cent of the funding provided by DFID in response to each natural disaster to prepare for and mitigate the impact of future disasters".
	It is now almost 18 months since representatives of 168 countries met in Japan and signed up to the Hyogo Framework for Action, which sets out commitments to ensure that disaster risk reduction is at the heart of government policy. World leaders made commitments on disaster reduction at the 2005 G8 summit stating,
	"disasters . . . have particularly grave implications for the poor and for hard-won development gains. In order to reduce disaster risk, we will work together with the UN, World Bank, other multi-development banks and developing countries to help them tackle disaster risk reduction more effectively. We will also consider how to improve the profile of disaster risk reduction in our development and other ministries".
	However, it is the case that most donors are still more responsive to emergences created by disasters than to supporting disaster risk reduction programmes. Nevertheless, as other noble Lords have mentioned, there is great scope for disaster risk reduction to be integrated into poverty reduction strategy papers as a platform for dialogue on supporting specific national disaster reduction efforts. A number of child-centred international charities, including Plan International UK and Save the Children, are leading by example with their field projects. Over the years, I have seen for myself the impact achieved in rural communities throughout Africa by working with the grain with village leaders and state agencies. A key aspect of the strategy must be an awareness of the connectivity of disasters and their risk reduction with children. Tens of thousands of children lost their lives in the Asian tsunami. Many would have survived with more information about disaster reduction and response. While around 80,000 people are killed by disasters each year, Plan International UK estimates that those disasters severely disrupt the lives of some 77 million children. In the Hyogo Framework for Action, signatories are committed to establishing national platforms for disaster risk reduction, but many countries, including the United Kingdom, have been spotlighted for making slow progress.
	On the positive side, in Africa, state agencies in Uganda have already integrated disaster risk reduction into their own poverty reduction strategy paper and have formed a national secretariat to co-ordinate those activities. In Kenya, a similar platform has developed a policy for fire management and arid lands development, and has secured a $30 million budget from government to support drought-mitigation activities. Examples such as these demonstrate how much more can be done within the right framework and with the right support.
	In summary, therefore, the key issues are surely to urge our own Government to give their strongest support: first, for national plans that build on local capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters; secondly, for the inclusion of disaster risk reduction in national poverty reduction strategy papers; and, most importantly, for the inclusion of children's needs and capacities in these national plans. I hope for confirmation from the Government tonight that they are committed to providing this greater support for more developing-country Governments in developing their comprehensive national plans.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for securing the debate, and all noble Lords who have taken part in it. There are three stages to this: the prevention of disasters, immediate disaster relief, and reconstruction afterwards. Given such limited time, I shall concentrate on prevention, where surely we can have the most effect. Some may think that disasters have simply always been with us, but in fact the effect of various natural events has become far more extreme in the past century or so. Climate change is a key factor, as others have said. Developing countries are especially vulnerable, as others have also commented. Famine and drought are increasing. The problems in Sudan, for example, have been exacerbated by the expansion of the desert into lands which the Janjaweed have left to pray on others.
	The growth of cities is critical in increasing the scale of disasters. Stephen Sparks from the University of Bristol, and Herbert Huppert from Cambridge, reporting on a recent Royal Society meeting, part of which I attended, said:
	"Mankind is becoming ever more susceptible to natural disasters, largely as a consequence of population growth and globalisation. It is likely, in the future, we will experience several disasters a year that kill more than 10,000 people. A calamity with a million casualties is just a matter of time".
	Cities are rapidly expanding in very dangerous locations with extremely poor infrastructures. Cambridge Professor of Seismology, James Jackson, who happens to be a cousin of mine, has researched the fact that earthquakes seem to target settlements such as Bam in Iran. He points out that water emerges at fault lines, which is why populations settle there. Populations expand, poor buildings are put up, and earthquakes can devastate when they hit. It is the so-called "megacities" that sit on these fault lines that cause the scientists such concern. Tehran, now with more than 12 million people, is built on one of these fault lines. It could very well suffer a massive and devastating earthquake, and its newest, most modern hospital has been built on a raised area that is clearly a fault line. Who approved where it should be? Why was known science not brought to bear? Should an earthquake strike, that hospital may be one of the first buildings to be destroyed.
	There are actions that we can take to mitigate disasters. Lives would have been saved had there been an early-warning system in the Indian Ocean. We know, as we have heard, that earthquakes in California have become in recent years economic problems, not human catastrophes. Education has, as others have said, helped to save lives, especially of children. Take the effect of the hurricanes that hit the Caribbean in 2004—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the one that hit in 2001. Haiti, with no civil protection office, no warnings and no evacuations, lost 3,000 people when Hurricane Jeanne hit. Cuba, hit by Hurricane Charley, saw only four deaths, after timely warnings and mass evacuations.
	We know that these warnings can be very low-tech, as in Bangladesh, which has 32,000 trained volunteers organised into groups of 12 in 3,500 villages. Deaths from cyclones have significantly declined. In Japan, every owner of every crane, so my cousin tells me, has to register where they are so that they can be immediately deployed in the event of an earthquake. There is a very long way to go before we reach that point in areas across the Middle East, around the Himalayan rim and down into China, where large populations are now living on fault lines where earthquakes may well strike in the next few years.
	Surely we can do much more to harness the knowledge that already exists. It was suggested at the Royal Society meeting that 5 per cent of the amount spent on disaster relief should be put into a fund for disaster prevention. Clearly national and international action needs to be taken, and knowledge needs to be transferred and to be acted on. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how the Government plan to take these issues forward. Will they promote the 5 per cent proposal? Will they support scientists coming from relevant countries to study here? What action will they take internationally to help the poorest countries?
	Not all disasters strike out of the blue, and we would surely be negligent if we did not apply what we already know, so in the interests of those whose lives are even now in danger, surely prevention should come far higher on our agenda.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us the opportunity to debate this Question. The DfID report highlights an area of international aid and development that has recently been widely reported but that may now well fall into its customary obscurity.
	Recent years have seen a tragic loss of life and enormous damage to infrastructure and to economies caused by natural disasters. The Asian tsunami at the end of 2004 showed us just how enormous the impact of a natural disaster can be, and how long the effects of one can last throughout the region. Even before 2004, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 1998 report said that natural disasters that year created more refugees than did armed conflicts.
	I hope that the debate will help to keep the lessons learnt from recent years to the forefront of our minds. The risk of natural disasters will not lessen as the memories of the Pakistan earthquake or Hurricane Katrina fade. Many noble Lords have stressed how the recent disasters have also made clear the enormously different impacts on rich and poor countries alike. In one, a natural disaster may cause significant damage to property and infrastructure, but little loss of life. In the other, a natural disaster will cause enormous loss of life and long-term damage or even obliteration of the regional economy and infrastructure. That contrast highlights just how much can be done to protect communities in future; not just by improving the response to a disaster, but also in prevention.
	The public response to the Asian tsunami was tremendous, as has been appreciated many times in this House. However, public fundraising campaigns cannot be relied on for a long-term solution. The recent famines in Africa, which many have pointed out could have been prevented by more timely aid at an earlier stage, show how less dramatic but equally tragic events do not gain enough media coverage or public support until it is too late.
	I am glad to see that the DFID report acknowledges the importance of making certain that preventative strategies are given their due priority by donor countries and organisations, and the national governments of the countries at risk, as stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. That policy, as is emphasised in the report, must not be seen as bleeding limited resources away from crucial short-term projects for a distant and speculative gain. Actions taken to prevent deforestation and to improve river drainage and water courses, or to enforce building standards, will all bring considerable short-term benefits as well as lowering the likelihood of a future natural disaster.
	We on these benches are broadly in agreement with the report, but there is much in it that we feel has not been addressed. The policy objectives are very clear on the need to support the international system which can provide long-term, co-ordinated aid. But what steps are the Government taking to make certain that other countries are doing the same? On 12 June, Hilary Benn proudly announced the sums that the UK had contributed to the UN's Central Emergency Response Fund, but the UK cannot give all that is needed; we must encourage other countries to increase their efforts too.
	The DFID report also highlights the need to build institutional structures within the disaster-prone countries. It says that it,
	"will focus on collaborating with developing country governments".
	Yet we know from past experience how ineffective those governments can be in setting up such ambitious institutions. How can the noble Baroness assure us that funds, whether bilateral or channelled through the United Nations or other international organisations, will not be lost through corruption?
	The report lays out the intention for DfID to use its regional divisions and country offices. I am glad that the importance of local knowledge and awareness of local conditions is appreciated, but can the noble Baroness explain how this policy is to be implemented in the face of closure of many overseas offices? How are DfID directors expected to work effectively with the recipient country if there is no FCO office remaining in the country? We have heard many of the policies laid out in this report in the 1997 White Paper. I can hope only that the next nine years see more progress in reducing the risk of natural disasters than the past nine years have done. We need a consistent and thorough approach to improving systems in the developing world and we hope that this Government will now be able to deliver.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on securing this debate and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Development organisations, including DfID, have underinvested in disaster risk reduction, or DRR. While continuing to respond generously to disasters, the Government recognise in their new policy paper that we must invest more in prevention. This is, however, long-term and low-profile work, which deserves much greater attention. I therefore warmly welcome this debate as an opportunity to raise its profile.
	As noble Lords have pointed out so graphically, the past two years have seen some of the worst natural disasters in living memory: the Asian tsunami; droughts in Africa; floods in eastern Europe; devastating hurricanes in the Caribbean and the US; and, most recently, the Pakistan and Java earthquakes. These disasters have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, ruined millions of livelihoods and caused billions of pounds' worth of damage.
	The number and frequency of disasters are growing. According to Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurers, economic losses from disasters in the 1990s totalled more than US$608 billion. That is greater than losses over the four previous decades combined. Climate change is bringing an increase in the frequency and severity of floods, storms and droughts.
	In addition, the resulting social and human costs are immense, with death, hunger and displaced persons, and with communities and infrastructure destroyed. We know that the poorest people are worst affected and suffer the most when disasters occur. We recognise that raising awareness of the risks is vital. That is why we are supporting the work of ActionAid, Plan UK and the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction to educate children about such risks. Many noble Lords have rightly emphasised the role of children. I acknowledge that perhaps we did not in the policy document talk enough about educating children and young people about the risks that they face from natural hazards, which is one of the best means of strengthening communities' resilience to disasters. That is exactly what ActionAid and Plan UK, with our support, are doing. I congratulate them on their excellent work. Of course, as noble Lords have pointed out, we must listen to and learn from children. That is the best way forward.
	I hope that with the Education for All initiative, which was recently launched by my right honourable friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, together with the President of Mozambique and President Mandela, there will perhaps be an opportunity to ensure that DRR is included in the curriculum, where appropriate, in developing countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, children in the wider communities must be familiar with the system and how to respond. We are supporting work in the Indian Ocean region to ensure that communities know not only about the tsunami early warning system, but how to use it to their benefit.
	The capacity to cope with and reduce risk is much more limited in poor countries. You only have to compare the two earthquakes mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dubs to understand that. Poor countries not only suffer great economic and social loss, but their capacity to reduce risk is also limited. Disasters affect economic development in poor countries and slow down progress towards the millennium development goals. For example, education becomes more difficult. Women and girls have increased responsibilities and, of course, children are often at most risk in floods and drought. The number of people living below the poverty line in Aceh increased from 30 per cent to 50 per cent following the 2004 tsunami.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is right that the public response to the tsunami was extraordinary. But, of course, the international community needs to learn the lessons from the way in which the disaster caused by the tsunami was handled. We look forward to a report by the Tsunami Evaluation Commission, which will be launched in London on 14 July. We will look carefully at its recommendations. Before I leave the issue of communities, I should respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She is absolutely right that no two communities are alike. We have to enable communities to respond in the way that best meets their needs.
	It is clear that we need a renewed effort on DRR. In his speech on humanitarian reform in December 2004, my right honourable friend Hilary Benn committed DfID to giving a higher priority to DRR, which we have done. Following his speech, a tsunami devastated large swathes of the Indian Ocean region. Shortly after the tsunami, the world met in Kobe at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction to agree the way forward on DRR over the next decade. These events reinforced the need for this step change in DfID's DRR work. We are encouraging the international community to follow suit. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said, that is the real challenge, but I am very glad that he pointed out that there was mention of risk in the G8 conclusions last year.
	As part of the step change, DfID launched its new DRR policy on 30 March. This policy, which is fully in line with the Hyogo framework for action, has three overarching objectives. The first is to promote better integration of DRR into development programmes. We have recently agreed a £4 million programme with the Word Bank to include DRR measures in the poverty reduction strategies of several disaster-prone countries in Africa, Asia and central America. DfID is also planning to train its staff to implement DRR in its own programmes. To answer to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, we are supporting comprehensive disaster management planning in a range of countries, including Bangladesh. Of course, we also understand the need for the MoD and the FCO to agree the way forward so that we are ready to respond to disasters when they, sadly, happen. We are also working with the UN, the EU and other donors to consider how disaster risk can be more effectively incorporated into national level planning processes.
	Secondly, we are working to improve the international DRR system. The Secretary of State for International Development called on the United Nations to consider whether its institutional set-up was adequate for the scale of the challenge. The UK has worked closely with the UN to reform the international strategy for disaster reduction, and we have recently contributed £3 million to this. Thirdly, we are working to reduce the vulnerability of poor communities by building their resilience to hazards. Over the past year or so, we have invested around £16 million in the Red Cross, ActionAid, Christian Aid and other NGOs to support community-level DRR work in Africa and Asia. We are also committed to allocating 10 per cent of the funding provided by DfID in response to each natural disaster to prepare for and mitigate the impact of future disasters where that can be done effectively. We will spend £7.5 million on DRR work in the tsunami-affected region and around £6 million in Pakistan following the earthquake.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked how we can ensure that funds are not lost through corruption. We are working on governance issues, and we are building the administrative capacity and the other capacity needed in developing countries with some of this money. Just last week, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that my right honourable friend Hilary Benn would be the Minister responsible for addressing corruption across the Government, and I am sure that he will have a large role to play in ensuring that these moneys are well spent in a properly accountable way.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other noble Lords have rightly raised the link between the increasing number of disasters and climate change, since the vast majority of the world's disasters are climate-related. Clearly, climate change and disaster reduction communities must work more closely together to reduce the vulnerability of people to those hazards. The Government are contributing to a range of international environment and climate change initiatives, including a pledge of £140 million to the global environment facility, as a signal of our commitment to addressing global environmental problems.
	Naturally, we recognise that we must invest more in preventing slow-onset disasters such as drought, which increase the numbers of destitute and therefore the need for relief over the years. DfID is therefore increasing its support for timely, adequate and guaranteed small payments of cash and/or food, fertiliser and seeds on a regular and long-term basis to the neediest. Those safety nets help to protect people from selling their assets in crisis and build resilience against shocks. In Ethiopia, for example, we have given £52 million of our £70 million commitment to support 8.24 million people. We are working with African Governments to scale up this approach in Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Lesotho. Providing additional financial resource is important, but much can be done to reduce disaster risk without extra money. Reducing disaster risk will in part be achieved by ensuring that our ongoing development and humanitarian work and that of our partners effectively takes account of risk—for example, through ensuring that infrastructure is properly designed to withstand possible climatic and seismic shocks.
	There is also an important role for the private sector. In developed countries, the private sector is at the heart of risk management, but that is not the case in developing countries. There needs to be greater engagement with the private sector to promote the more active engagement in emerging markets and poor communities. Naturally, insurance companies have a very large role to play, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton. We have to build on the examples provided by microinsurance and microcredit institutions—their potential applications to risk reduction should be explored. That could include encouraging the private sector to incorporate disaster risk issues in their CSR programmes. I am pleased to report that companies such as Cable & Wireless are talking to DfID about how best to get involved.
	We know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What will we be doing on Monday morning? One thing that we will be doing is announcing the funding of a programme as part of the conflict and humanitarian fund to look at the cost benefit analysis of DRR interventions in Pakistan, India and Nepal. We really are putting our money where our mouth is. We are absolutely committed to doing more to reducing the impact of disasters, particularly in the poorest countries. We are providing substantial resources, but we have a challenge in galvanising and sustaining sufficient resources from the wider international community. That will require continued attention and advocacy both from Ministers and from civil society groups. The Government cannot solve the disaster risk reduction funding issue on their own. We must continue to give high priority in making the case for disaster reduction, and we should work to strengthen the commitment of partner country authorities to recognise the importance of disaster reduction and give it due priority in their policies. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that that happens.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 93.
	[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
	Clause 94 [Legislative competence: supplementary]:

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. These amendments were probing amendments in Committee and have been tabled again in the light of a further letter I have received from the Minister. If I may say so, it is a model of clarity and perspicacity. I wish only to respond to the content in a wholly laudatory manner and add a further thought I have had in its slipstream.
	The subsections of Clause 94 to which I wish to refer deal with the circumstances in which Part 1 of Schedule 5 can be amended. It may be helpful if I draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the relevant parts. Clause 94(1) states:
	"Her Majesty may by Order in Council . . .
	(b) amend that Part to add a new field or to vary or remove any field".
	Subsection (2) goes on to state:
	"An Order in Council under this section does not have effect to amend Part 1 of Schedule 5 by adding a field if, at the time when the amendment comes into force, no functions in the field are exercisable by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General".
	The situation appears to be that with the separation of the Executive from the legislature in Wales, Ministers who represent the Executive inherit all the functions that the Assembly performs. Part 1 of Schedule 5 reflects the legislative consequences of that. In other words, the fields and the matters under the fields in Part 1 reflect the precise nature of the functions as they now are. Clause 94(2) states, in the context of clause 94(1), that new fields and new matters can be added to Part 1 of Schedule 5 provided that they reflect new Executive functions and thus new ministerial functions. Those functions are devolved on Ministers earlier in the Bill under Clause 58. My interest in this matter has therefore shifted to Clause 58 itself.
	We have spent a great deal of time both in another place and in your Lordships' House focusing on exactly what procedures we need to develop in both Houses to properly scrutinise the devolution of legislative power to the Welsh Assembly. It appears that if we are to add to the scope of devolution, we can do so only if additional powers and functions are granted to Welsh Ministers under Clause 58. So far we have paid no attention to the system of devolution in that clause.
	There, the decision to devolve is also controlled by an Order in Council procedure; but, so far as I am aware, no Government Minister, either in another place or in your Lordships' House, has suggested for Clause 58 a pre-legislative procedure as has been suggested for Clause 94. I should be most grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to indicate whether he would be sympathetic to Parliament developing a pre-legislative procedure for Clause 58 similar to that suggested by Mr Ainger in another place for Clause 94. I beg to move.

Lord Rowlands: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 43 I have no wish to rehearse or readdress the debate that we had in Committee on this issue but, perhaps drawing upon that debate and also on the debate on 24 January in another place, to see whether we can come to a conclusion about the nature and contents of Orders in Council. When my noble friend replies, perhaps we could have the equivalent of a definitive statement on what he sees as the essential elements of the contents of an Order in Council.
	I venture, therefore, to offer two or three thoughts about such contents as a contribution to his conclusions. It seems to me that the first conclusion we can draw from the discussions that we had in Committee, and certainly from those in the other place on 24 January, is that any Order in Council can be brought forward only in a particular policy context. In other words, it cannot be brought forward in a kind of vacuum. That has been emphasised over and over again by my noble friend in this House and certainly by Mr Nick Ainger in the other place. In fact, it appears that before we ever see an Order in Council there is going to be a very elaborate pre-Order in Council process. The Parliamentary Secretary described it on 24 January: there will be memoranda explaining what the measures will cover; the reasons behind them; the policy developed and so on.
	Then there will be, as my noble friend emphasised in the debate in Committee, a thorough pre-legislative scrutiny. Again, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the proposed draft orders can be amended, which would mean that more weight would be given to pre-legislative scrutiny than usual—possibly because orders are ultimately not amendable. I find it very comforting and reassuring that there will be a considerable run-in to an Order in Council coming before us in draft form and, subsequently, in its final form.
	However, none of those statements quite answers the question I posed in Committee—that is, what will be included in the Order in Council as presented to us? The only way in which we can answer that so far as I can see now is to fall back upon the two mock draft orders that the Government helpfully offered us as examples of the shape that an Order in Council will take. Looking at the two mock draft orders—the transport and public ombudsman orders—we notice, first, that there has to be a specific identification of the field within which enhanced legislative competence is being sought. For example, the transport order will obviously identify that it is field 10 under which the competence is being sought. Then, under that, there is "The Matter"; and under "The Matter" there is, possibly, "Provision". There could be more than one provision or a provision and a series of subsections. I shall come to the transport order in a minute.
	I assume from these two mock draft orders that the principal purpose or purposes for which the enhanced competence is being sought—and the reasons why—will be included in the Order in Council. That is one of the assurances that I would like my noble friend to give me, because that seems to be the only conclusion we can draw from the two mock draft orders we have received. This is a fundamental point as it demonstrates that these are not open-ended orders in many respects.
	On the draft transport order, in Committee I raised the question—my noble friend did not deal with it, but I do not blame him because he was replying to a fractured debate of one kind or another—why this order did not include one of the most eye-catching aspects of the original transport Bill: the power which the Assembly was seeking to fund and support or subsidise air services and airports. I hope my noble friend will say why that was excluded, especially because on rereading the draft transport order, he may have come to the same conclusion to which I have come, that as the order was drafted I do not believe that it would have given the Assembly such competence. Interestingly, the last part of the provision in relation to it refers to financial support for such bodies by levy or precepts. The reference to such bodies is in paragraph (b), and all those are about local authority transport functions. Therefore, I suspect that as drafted, and by leaving out the specific reference to the support for air services, it may be that the Assembly would not have such competence.
	All that I wish to do is to emphasise the importance of the essential elements of the Order in Council so that we know what we are voting for. The kind of assurance that I seek is that we do not have a draft order that reads something like this:
	"Field 16: support for sport and recreation",
	or,
	"provisions in relation to support",
	or,
	"Field 5: provisions in relation to nursery education".
	We expect, and I hope that my noble friend will give us the assurance, that such minimally worded orders with such huge potential for expansion of Assembly legislative competence will not be considered or come to this House or the other place. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has come out with a very attractive argument for the disclosure of the purpose of a particular Order in Council. However, one weakness of this mechanism is that once the field has been established and the details have been given, anything can happen into the future. It is not the provision that the Assembly has in mind that will be covered.
	To take for example the noble Lord's illustration, if the Order in Council were to provide nursery education, the Assembly might very well bring in a measure that would deal with the nursery education for that particular moment and then two years later could bring in a measure to reverse the first measure. Another Government in the Welsh Assembly could reverse what happened in the first measure. Once the field is established, it is established for all time. That is one of the great problems about the mechanism that is being put into the Bill in Part 3. It is a very good reason for moving as quickly as we can to Part 4, where we can get into proper primary legislative powers. At the moment, the way in which Part 3 will operate could conceal reverses of policy as well as the ground of policy itself.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rowlands for tabling Amendment No. 43, which gives us the opportunity to discuss some of the very important issues that he raised in Committee. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	It may be helpful if I begin by restating the key differences between Part 3 of the Bill, dealing with Assembly measures, and Part 4, which concerns primary legislative powers for the Assembly, without reigniting some of the discussions that we had before the dinner break.
	Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Bill sets out the framework for the legislative competence of the Assembly under Part 3. It lists fields, which are broad policy areas corresponding to the existing responsibilities of the Assembly. The fields themselves do not confer any legislative competence on the Assembly; they merely indicate the areas in which it may acquire legislative competence. What is more, under Part 3 of the Bill, the Assembly will not be able to gain legislative competence over a whole field at a time. It could not, for example, bid for legislative competence over "Local Government" or "Housing". Instead, the Assembly will have to identify a specific matter on which it wishes to seek legislative competence.
	A "matter" is a defined piece of legislative competence. The only matters that are currently inserted in Schedule 5 are under field 13, "National Assembly for Wales"; matter 13.1 for example is the,
	"creation of, and conferral of functions on, an office or body for and in connection with investigating complaints about the conduct of Assembly Members and reporting on the outcome of such investigations to the Assembly".
	The mechanism in Part 3 for adding a matter to Part 1 of Schedule 5 is an Order in Council. Parliament will consider each Order in Council and so decide on a case-by-case basis whether the Assembly should be granted the particular legislative competence being sought. The scope of the legislative competence in each case will be defined by the wording of the matter. Pre-legislative scrutiny of a proposed Order in Council will provide Parliament and the Assembly with the opportunity to examine the scope of the legislative competence being sought and to propose changes to the Order in Council which would either clarify or alter it.
	I have previously provided to the House, as we heard from my noble friend, a mock Order in Council covering provisions under the Transport (Wales) Act 2006. My noble friend commented, and repeated this evening, that it was not clear from the wording of the "matter" in the mock Order in Council that it would enable the Assembly to provide financial assistance to the providers of air services. It may help if I clarify that the mock Order in Council covers only local authority transport functions which correspond to Sections 1 to 6 of the Transport (Wales) Act 2006. It would of course be possible to include the provision of financial assistance to providers of air services as a matter within the order. Indeed, that is precisely the sort of issue that should be considered from the earliest stages, when the proposed Order in Council is being worked up, through to the finalisation of the draft Order in Council to be laid before the Assembly and Parliament.
	These proposals for Orders in Council will be prepared by the Assembly on the basis of an analysis of what it wants to be able to do and that it cannot do under existing legislation and within its existing powers. That will be the basis on which the "matter", which will define the scope of the legislative competence, will be drafted.
	When seeking an Order in Council, the Assembly will set out what it wants legislative competence for. The "matter" in the Order in Council will be drafted accordingly in consultation with the Secretary of State, who will ensure that pre-legislative scrutiny of a proposed Order is informed by that explanation. It will then be for Parliament to judge both whether it is appropriate for the Assembly to have that competence and whether it is correctly defined to cover what provision the Assembly wishes to be able to make by an Assembly measure. Clearly Parliament may ask for as much information as it thinks necessary during pre-legislative scrutiny of any proposed Order in Council.
	To those who have expressed concerns that the new Order in Council procedure might be used to give the Assembly primary powers through a back door, I would ask them to reflect on this clear distinction between Parts 3 and 4. I would draw their attention to the words of the Secretary of State for Wales, who said when opening the Second Reading debate on this Bill in another place:
	"If the Assembly ever attempted to acquire such powers by the back door, I as Secretary of State would block it, so would this House and so would the Lords. It is inconceivable because there is a triple lock to prevent it. Parliament remains in charge".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 39.]
	Finally, turning to the specific wording of my noble friend's amendment, I am afraid that we could not support it because the term "principal reasons" suggests that the competence would always have to be defined only to achieve a particular policy objective. Given that the competence would be granted on an enduring basis, it will usually need to be defined so as to enable policies to be adapted or altered within the scope of the legislative competence granted. Otherwise, the Assembly might have to return to Parliament to seek further legislative competence every time it wanted to amend its own legislation, which is obviously not the intention.
	However, I can confirm the basic premise that these are "powers for a purpose" and that they will be granted only on a case-by-case basis where it is agreed that it is right for the Assembly to be able to legislate on that matter. I apologise for speaking at length but this is a very important issue. I hope that with the benefit of this explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 deals with Clause 94(4), which states:
	"An Order in Council under this section may make provision having retrospective effect".
	Orders in Council under Clause 94 are what I have called, in the course of our debates, stage 1 orders. They delegate legislative authority to the Welsh Assembly by enhancing its fields of legislative power under Part 1 of Schedule 5. This matter was debated at some length on 6 June at columns 1169 to 1172; I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that were deployed at the time, either on our side or the Government's side.
	The worry that we have is clear. We are concerned that the retrospective power will be used to change decisions in litigation. If, for example, an Assembly measure is in issue in a trial, which has been authorised under one field or another of Part 1 of Schedule 5, and the judge concludes that the Assembly measure is ultra vires that field, we do not want an Order in Council made under Clause 94(4) to widen the scope, retrospectively, of the field in Part 1 of Schedule 5 so as to make what was decided by the judge as ultra vires, intra vires, thereby changing the decision of the court.
	We quite accept that if, as a result of litigation, an Assembly measure is decided to be ultra vires, an order might then be made changing the law for the future. That would be entirely understood and completely acceptable; but we would find it wholly unacceptable if the results of litigation could be changed by this subsection. I think that that summarises three columns of exchanges in Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I hope that I will be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. First, the Government do not envisage the power to make retrospective provision to be exercised except in very rare cases. Such an Order in Council will require the approval of the Assembly and both Houses of Parliament. Such a provision cannot therefore be made at the whim of the Executive.
	Let me give a hypothetical example of when this provision might be needed. Suppose the Assembly enacts a measure that introduced an incentive scheme for those helping 14 to 19 year-olds to gain qualifications, and the Welsh Ministers go ahead and implement the measure. After a year someone questions whether voluntary organisations are entitled to benefit from the scheme, because the matter under which the measure was made does not specifically refer to voluntary organisations but does refer to educational establishments. This is despite the fact that when the matter was added, it was made clear in the Assembly and in Parliament that what the Welsh Ministers had in mind was a scheme of the sort they have now implemented.
	In those circumstances it would be clear that everyone intended people in voluntary organisations to be able to receive the incentives, and, what is more, they would already have received some. There is already provision in Clauses 150 and 152 of the Bill to enable the effects of any ultra vires legislation to be remedied so that third parties who have acted in good faith, believing the legislation to be valid, are not disadvantaged. In a case like that, where there is doubt about whether the measure should have been able to extend to voluntary organisations, the simplest course will be to correct the wording of the matter to remove the doubt. All Clause 94(4) does is make it clear that this can be done. In those circumstances it is inconceivable that an Order in Council would be brought forward that sought to undermine the court's proceedings. The Secretary of State would have to consider any action carefully for its compatibility with the convention rights.
	As I indicated in Committee, one would hardly ever expect this provision to be needed because no one would expect any shortcomings in the drafting of proposed Orders in Council to be ironed out during pre-legislative scrutiny. However, it is still necessary to have provision so that if any deficiency comes to light subsequently, it is absolutely clear what can be done to put it right. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am partially satisfied by what the Minister said, but only partially. I am trying to think how this would work in our own law—where there is no express provision to provide for retrospectivity. I am concerned about the implications such a change might have for third parties although the Minister has drawn my attention to other clauses in the Bill that he believes will satisfy that worry. I will go away and reflect on what he has said, and retain the option to bring this matter back on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 45 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 49 and 51. The effect of Amendment No. 45 omits laying the Order in Council before it is approved by a resolution by each House of Parliament.
	Amendment No. 49 reduces the time taken to lay the draft before Parliament from 60 to 30 days. The Secretary of State must give written reasons if that is not done. We believe that is a necessary process. The Assembly resolution would be received and submitted. The Clerk of the Assembly, not the Secretary of State, should then submit draft Orders in Council, once they have been approved, for approval by Her Majesty in Council.
	Amendment No. 51 would reduce the time period from 60 days to 30 days in a situation where Parliament had been prorogued or adjourned. The amendments together provide that a draft Order in Council cannot be either submitted to Parliament or rejected by the Secretary of State; it can only be sent to the Queen for approval. The amendments were designed to liberate the Assembly from the grip of Westminster. They would give more power to the Assembly by removing some of the delaying powers and possible blocking by the Secretary of State or Parliament. We believe that that procedure would assist and perhaps help to solve the problem mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the Secretary of State would have too much power. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment No. 45 would remove the requirement for a draft Order in Council amending Schedule 5 to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. It would remove Parliament from the process of conferring legislative competence on the Assembly by the Clause 94 process altogether, allowing the Assembly to vote itself unlimited additional powers. Indeed, the Assembly's power would become so vast, as my noble friend Lord Sewel pointed out in Committee, that the amendment can hardly be regarded as a species of devolution. I cannot think of any precedent anywhere in the world where a sub-national legislature can simply vote itself whatever new powers it wishes. Under the amendment, any field of policy could be devolved without parliamentary consent, from foreign policy to taxation, pensions, defence and national security. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not be surprised that I must reject the amendment on principle. It bears no relation whatever to the settlement for which the Welsh people voted in the 1997 referendum.
	Amendment Nos. 51 and 49 would remove the Bill's provisions that provide the 60-day period during which the Secretary of State may consider a draft Order in Council that has been approved by the Assembly before laying it before Parliament or writing to the First Minister explaining his reasons for declining to do so. Instead, the amendments would require the Secretary of State before the end of 30 days to send the draft order approved by the Assembly to the Clerk of the Assembly, who is then under a duty to submit it to Her Majesty for approval. Given that the Secretary of State will be required to set in train a process that would result in Her Majesty approving the Order in Council, it is not clear what the purpose of the 30-day period would be.
	The Secretary of State would not be able to consider the draft Order in Council and then reject it if he did not think it appropriate, because the amendment requires him to send it to the Clerk. We cannot agree that there is anything unreasonable in the 60-day period or the mechanism provided in the Bill for the approval of such Orders in Council. First, it is important that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider a request once it has been submitted by the Assembly, particularly if changes have been made to the request following pre-legislative scrutiny. Secondly, many contributions to our debates on the Bill from all sides of the House have stressed the importance of Parliament scrutinising the proposed Order in Council, since it is unamendable when formally laid before Parliament.
	It is the Government's intention that pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed Orders in Council will normally take place before a formal request for an order is made by the Assembly under Clause 94, therefore enabling recommendations to be taken into account. To ensure proper scrutiny of proposed orders, the Bill provides for a 60-day period after such a formal request for an order has been submitted, which would provide the Secretary of State with discretion to invite further scrutiny where appropriate. By limiting that period to 30 days, the Liberal Democrat amendment would make it extremely difficult for Parliament to undertake such scrutiny effectively.
	I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation and that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we have debated the substance of Amendment No. 47 on a previous occasion. It is the Opposition's attempt to respond to the suggestion by Mr Ainger in another place that Parliament should develop a suitable pre-legislative procedure to deal with draft Order in Council proposals. Your Lordships will recall that the involvement of both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee was considered vital by a number of Members in another place.
	This amendment seeks to maximise the impact of the pre-legislative procedure, which takes place in Parliament's committees, on the decision makers. Here I am thinking particularly of the Secretary of State but also of the Welsh Assembly. Of course, it will not be true for all draft orders; some will be more controversial than others. But I believe that, before the formal procedure starts, Parliament will need some time to look at the various considerations. I have suggested a period of six months. I expect that many of your Lordships will consider that too long; I would certainly be willing to entertain a somewhat shorter period, although Parliament would still need several months to conduct an appropriate investigation.
	Under the Order in Council procedure, Parliament will not be able to amend the order in the way that it does draft Bills. I have tried to deal with that in new subsections (6D) and (6E) of my amendment. New subsection (6D) would require the Secretary of State to have regard,
	"(a) to any representations made during the period for Parliamentary consideration with regard to the document, and
	(b) in particular, to any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament with regard to the document".
	Your Lordships will also note that new subsection (6E) of the amendment proposes that, when the Secretary of State lays the draft Order in Council before Parliament, he,
	"must also lay a statement giving details of—
	(a) any such representations, resolutions or reports, and
	(b) the changes (if any) that he has made to his proposals in the light of those representations, resolutions or reports".
	These Orders in Council devolve power to the Welsh Assembly from the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. They must be taken seriously. They can be dealt with seriously only if the structures and procedures are in place at Westminster to give them the examination that we would normally expect to give a Bill, bearing in mind that, unlike a Bill, we cannot amend them. That is the philosophy behind this amendment. I hope that the Government will welcome it and, though they cannot legislate for what happens in Parliament, give enough sea-room in the Bill for Parliament to undertake its important task. I beg to move.

Lord Rowlands: My Lords, Clause 95, part of Clause 96, Clause 98 and perhaps Clause 100 deal with the possibility that either a matter or a measure could be referred to the Supreme Court by the Attorney-General or the Counsel General if it appears that it is outside the scope of the Assembly's legislative competence. Those are sledgehammer powers. Intriguingly, Clause 96(3) says that at an early stage:
	"The Presiding Officer must, on or before the introduction of a proposed Assembly measure in the Assembly . . . decide whether . . . the provisions . . . would be within the Assembly's legislative competence, and . . . state the decision".
	I was intrigued by the role of the Presiding Officer—it is important and right that they should have that role—in this case. What would happen? Once that decision has been made, does the measure not proceed? What would happen if amendments to a measure were proposed that would, if they were agreed to, take the measure outside the Assembly's competence? Who would rule on such amendments? If the Presiding Officer is acting as the first gatekeeper, he should also in this instance decide whether a proposed amendment would or would not, if carried, take the measure outside the Assembly's competence. Perhaps I should have amended my amendment to include the chair of committees, because some of the amendments may arise in committee stage when the Presiding Officer is not presiding.
	I notice with interest that, in Scotland, the Presiding Officer decides on the admissibility of amendments. In this case, far better than involving supreme courts and the rest of it, this matter should be dealt with in the terms and procedures of the Assembly itself. Therefore I am attracted to Clause 96(3), subject to finding out what happens once the Presiding Officer has made and stated his decision, in that his power should also apply to amendments that would carry the measure beyond the scope of the Assembly's competence. I beg to move.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
	Clause 101: [Approval of proposed Assembly Measures]:
	[Amendments Nos. 60A to 61 not moved.]
	Clause 102 [Referendum about commencement of Assembly Act provisions]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, suggested that the Conservative Party was being converted to the cause of devolution. The problem is that it is, like many recent converts, becoming quite messianic about it. It now proposes to reduce the threshold—or at least the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, does, from his original proposal of two-thirds of all Assembly Members to 55 per cent. It must be recognised that a referendum must not take place prematurely for the simple reason that an unsuccessful referendum would undermine confidence in the Assembly and do profound damage to the whole devolution settlement. Of course, noble Lords in opposition may be entirely reckless about that consequence for the people of Wales, but let me assure them that if they aspire to any position of responsible government, they would take a different view about what has been established in Wales and the damage that could be done to an Assembly in which a referendum would be held and then a vote of the people against an extension of its powers.
	We maintain that to advance the cause of devolution we need broad cross-party support. Therefore, taking the opposition parties at face value, we greatly welcome their commitment to the development of devolution and we want to see that broad party consensus developed before a referendum can go ahead. Even when there was consensus about these issues in 1997, it will be recognised that the referendum was won by only the narrowest of margins. A vote by not less than two-thirds of all Assembly Members and positive evidence from consultation would demonstrate that such a consultation existed and would help protect the devolution settlement for future generations.
	I am taking the Opposition at face value. They are committed to ensuring that devolution works. Therefore, I am sure that they agree with us that nothing should be done which would jeopardise the devolution settlement if things should go wrong with a referendum. It is therefore entirely right that we should see the gradual enhancement of powers for the Assembly, as we proposed, both in our manifesto and in the Bill. But the decision on full plenary powers would be, and is, a dramatic and significant decision for the people of Wales. It is only right. No Government would be acting responsibly at all if they pursued a course of action which might lead not only to the loss of that proposal, but to the existing devolution settlement and the operation of the Assembly being severely damaged.
	Amendment No. 63 would remove the statutory requirement placed on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft referendum order. Amendment No. 67 would remove the Secretary of State's discretion over whether to lay a draft referendum Order in Council before Parliament. It cannot be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have some discretion in this matter and to be able to take the views expressed through consultation into account. The United Kingdom Government of the day should have a say on such a major constitutional decision, because that is what it would be.
	I am hearing some strange arguments from some strange quarters at the present time, which are indicating that neither the Secretary of State nor Parliament should have any say in such a significant development. The Secretary of State cannot avoid consulting the electoral commission on the referendum question. That is required under Section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	We are all united in wishing to see devolution succeed. We should not therefore support an amendment which would put it in jeopardy. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the Bill contains no clear timetable for the move to the legislative powers set out in Part 4. Such a timetable was a major recommendation of the Richard report. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay a draft order for a referendum by 30 June 2010. That should allow time for the referendum to be held in time for the Assembly expected to be elected in 2011 to assume the powers contained in Part 4.
	No clear timescale is indicated in the Bill. We feel strongly that there should be a progression and some indication of when the referendum would take place. It is a logical procedure; there will be an election to the Assembly next year, so it will have run for three years by 2010. Tomorrow's Wales is very keen to see this amendment accepted. I remind the House that Tomorrow's Wales contains representation from all parties and none; it is chaired by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Once again, my Lords, I respectfully ask the noble Lord opposite to present some consistency. It appears that the intention behind these amendments is that by removing the clauses the Assembly would move straight to Part 4 of the Bill without the need for a referendum. The enthusiasm for devolution now on the part of the Liberal Democrats is such that no referendum is necessary at all. I am not sure when that is triggered off. After all, the mechanism for commencement of these provisions is contained in Clause 104 and the amendment takes that out, so we have lost any capacity to form a timescale.
	Presumably the amendments are based on the intention that they would come into force immediately after the Assembly election in May 2007. A moment ago we had an amendment that indicated it should not be as early as that, and just before that I had support from the Liberal Democrat Benches for the Government's contention that the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to reduce the figures for a referendum might lead to a premature referendum and difficulty.
	Again, the Government are entirely consistent in their position. I am afraid these amendments attack that consistency. Our view is that Part 4 can only come into play after a referendum. A referendum will have to be carefully considered. It will need the support of a two-thirds majority of the Assembly and the support of Parliament, because it is right that a constitutional decision of this kind should be the subject of a view by Parliament as a whole.
	All that is predicated on the assumption that to get the concept of the referendum wrong would be to damage a devolution settlement. It would not destroy the devolution settlement, because, at least, in that sense, one could say that one was going back to square one and a situation where there was no National Assembly, but we are talking about a devolution settlement in which the Assembly would exist with powers under the existing legislation but having had a referendum against it showing no confidence in an enhancement of its powers, which is bound to do it damage.
	That is why the Government's position is carefully calibrated against the presumption that politicians—elected Members of the Assembly and of Parliament—must reach the difficult decision to enhance for the people of Wales the powers of their Assembly. The amendment would drive a coach and horses through that concept.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to acknowledge the point that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, wishes. I have spoken to my noble friend Lord Barnett about the Barnett formula. I believe that he is embarrassed that his name is attached to something that comes up about twice a week in your Lordships' House. I have not heard him say that he supports the amendment. Perhaps we should suggest to him that, to get his embarrassment under control, it should be called the "Livsey formula" rather than the Barnett formula.
	As we debated in Committee, the issue of funding for Wales raised by Amendment No. 73 is inseparable from the issue of public expenditure in the UK as a whole. The ambit of the Bill obviously relates only to Wales. As we know, the Barnett formula is operated by the Treasury and determines the funding allocations for Northern Ireland and Scotland as well as Wales. Our view is that it has served the United Kingdom very effectively. The Government will continue to monitor the operation of the current formula to make sure that it is being applied properly and rigorously.
	The mechanism is clear and has advantages for devolved government. It is simple and understandable. The Government have taken a careful look at the matter and have concluded that no advantage would be gained by reopening the question of the Barnett formula. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this amendment was debated, voted on and resoundingly rejected by 281 votes to 44 on Report in the Commons.
	Obviously, the last thing that we want to get into tonight is a detailed debate on the Barnett formula, but the Government's view is quite contrary to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey. The spending review 2004 delivered an excellent settlement for Wales: an extra £2.5 billion to spend each year by 2007–08. The formula provided average growth of over 4 per cent each year over the spending period. The spending on Wales is higher than the UK average. The latest Treasury figures show that government spending per person in Wales remains well above UK levels and ahead of England. Spending on health—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, specifically raised—is three percentage points ahead of the UK and five percentage points above England. It may be that, with all due respect, the noble Lord is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I suggest that he withdraws his amendment.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I say on behalf of these Benches what a great pleasure it is to receive the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, back into the debate. I will try to give her the reassurances that she seeks.
	As we have heard, Amendment No. 75 would remove Clause 135. In doing so, it would deprive the House of Commons of the right to scrutinise, via reports of the UK Comptroller and Auditor General, how money that it has voted to the Secretary of State for Wales for payment into the Welsh Consolidated Fund has been spent.
	Clause 135(1) gives the Comptroller and Auditor General the right to examine payments into and out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. Payments into the Welsh Consolidated Fund will largely comprise moneys voted by Parliament, so Parliament is entitled to see how the money that it has voted has ultimately been spent. It is only right that Parliament's appointed statutory auditor should have the right to examine the accounts of these payments and to report the results of his examination to the House of Commons. However, there is no question of the Comptroller and Auditor General overriding or short-circuiting the line of accountability to the Assembly. The Auditor General for Wales will have primary responsibility for scrutinising the payments into and out of the Welsh Consolidated Fund. He will examine and certify the accounts that Welsh Ministers have to prepare and lay his report on them before the Assembly. The Assembly's Audit Committee can then consider and report on those certified accounts.
	While it is entirely a matter for the UK Comptroller and Auditor General to decide when to exercise his examination rights under Clause 135, it is anticipated that they would be used only in the event of a serious problem which the UK Comptroller felt could not adequately be dealt with in Wales or in collaboration with the Auditor General for Wales.
	The comptroller currently has the right to examine the Assembly's finances under Section 101 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. That power has never yet been exercised. The Wales Audit Office has confirmed to the Government that it is content with the arrangements.
	The noble Baroness also asked about what would happen if there was an adverse report. If the accounts do not comply with the directions issued by the Treasury on format and content, the Auditor General is under no legal duty to examine and certify them. That duty is only triggered once he receives accounts prepared in compliance with any Treasury directions under Clause 131(2). If the accounts omit the requisite content or are not in a compliant format, the Auditor General can simply send them back to the Welsh Ministers and ask for them to be reprepared.
	Provided the accounts comply with the Treasury directions, the Auditor General must examine, certify and report on them, but, if he is unhappy with or concerned about any item in the accounts, it is open to him to issue a qualified report that flags up his concerns to the Assembly and its Audit Committee, who will then be able to hold the accounting officer to account for those items.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his contribution, which was again to the point.
	This is rather curious. We have perfectly good arrangements where the Auditor General for Wales has all the powers that he seems to need to carry out investigations and all the proper avenues for reporting things that go wrong. Nevertheless, the Comptroller and Auditor General is still there, able to investigate broadly what he wants, presumably able to issue reports as he chooses and then trigger the UK parliamentary procedures that flow from that.
	Given the lateness of the hour, we do not want to pursue that. I have already made it clear that this is a probing amendment for this evening, but we will want to think carefully about the unsatisfactory nature of what the Minister had told us and possibly return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 102:
	Page 144, line 11, leave out "Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons" and insert "Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Lords"
	Page 154, line 32, at end insert—
	"51A In section 151(2) (power to make consequential amendments), for "22" substitute "58 of the Government of Wales Act 2006"."
	Page 158, line 16, leave out from "In" to end of line 17 and insert "section 12 (special reports: supplementary), omit subsection (9)."
	Page 158, leave out lines 23 to 29 and insert—
	"(3) Omit subsection (9).
	73 In section 21 (reports: alternative procedure), omit subsection (11).
	74 In section 23 (special reports: supplementary), omit subsection (6)."
	Page 158, line 33, leave out from "(2)" to end of line 34 and insert "—
	(a) for "Assembly First Secretary" substitute "relevant person", and
	(b) omit paragraph (b).
	(3A) After that subsection insert—
	"(2A) In subsection (2) "the relevant person" means—
	(a) if the complaint was made in respect of the Welsh Assembly Government, the First Minister for Wales, and
	(b) if the complaint was made in respect of the National Assembly for Wales Commission, a member of that Commission."
	(3B) Omit subsection (3)."
	Page 159, line 15, leave out "substitute "Welsh Ministers," and insert "has" substitute "Welsh Ministers have, or"
	Page 159, line 17, after "Government" insert "has,"
	Page 159, line 37, leave out "substitute "Welsh Ministers," and insert "has" substitute "Welsh Ministers have, or"
	Page 159, line 39, after "Government" insert "has,"
	Page 159, line 41, leave out "substitute "Welsh Ministers," and insert "has" substitute "Welsh Ministers have, or"
	Page 159, line 43, after "Government" insert "has,"
	Page 160, line 5, at end insert—
	"(aa) in the definition of "relevant tribunal", for "Assembly" substitute "Welsh Ministers","
	Page 160, line 15, leave out from "In" to end of line 16 and insert "subsection (2), for "Assembly" (in both places) substitute "Welsh Ministers".
	(4) After that subsection insert—
	"(2A) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Assembly."
	(5) In subsection (3), for "Assembly" substitute "Welsh Ministers".
	(6) In subsection (4)—
	(a) for "Assembly" substitute "Welsh Ministers", and
	(b) for "it thinks" substitute "they think".
	(7) After that subsection insert—
	"(4A) No order is to be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.""
	Page 160, line 26, at end insert—
	"(4) After subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) No regulations are to be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.""
	Page 160, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
	"83 (1) Section 43 (consequential and transitional provision) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for "Assembly" substitute "Welsh Ministers", and
	(b) for "it thinks" substitute "they think".
	(3) After subsection (3) insert—
	"(4) No order is to be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.""
	Page 160, line 42, leave out ""if the"" and insert ""Ombudsman""
	Page 161, line 18, at end insert "former"
	Page 162, line 6, leave out "and the Welsh Ministers" and insert ", on the one hand, and the Welsh Ministers (or the First Minister for Wales or the Counsel General to the Welsh Assembly Government), on the other,"
	Page 162, line 9, after "Ministers" insert "(or the First Minister for Wales or the Counsel General to the Welsh Assembly Government)"
	Page 162, line 44, after "Ministers" insert ", the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Assembly Government"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 160 [Commencement]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 102:
	Page 90, line 22, leave out "and 6" and insert ", 6 and 12"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 103 and 104 not moved.]
	Clause 161 [Transitional etc. provision]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 105, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106. These amendments are the Government's response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommendations. They provide for affirmative procedure in Parliament to apply to any orders under Clause 161 amending or repealing paragraphs 28 to 33 of Schedule 11, dealing with the transfer of functions to Welsh Ministers, and paragraphs 47 to 48 of that Schedule, which concern the method for giving the Assembly enhanced legislative competence. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and the members of the Delegated Powers Committee for their detailed and careful consideration of the Bill.
	As I set out in my letter notifying noble Lords of these amendments, the Government recognise that Schedule 11 gives effect to the constitutional change brought about by Parts 1 and 2. It is for that reason that we have sought to set out the transitional provisions in as much detail as possible in the schedule and therefore in the Bill. The Government accept that any amendment by order of the provisions in paragraphs 28 to 33 should be subject to the affirmative procedure. In addition, paragraphs 47 and 48 of Schedule 11 concern the power to amend Schedule 5, which sets out the matters on which the Assembly constituted by this Bill will have legislative competence. It would be consistent, since these paragraphs also relate to the conferring of powers, to make amendment of those paragraphs by order also subject to affirmative procedure. That is what the amendments will achieve. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendments Nos. 107 to 116:
	Page 164, line 2, at end insert—
	:TITLE3:"Alteration of Assembly electoral regions
	A1 (1) Until the coming into force of section 16(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) for the purpose of transferring the functions of the Boundary Commission for Wales to the Electoral Commission and conferring functions on the Boundary Committee for Wales, Schedule 1 has effect subject to the following modifications.
	(2) In paragraph 1, omit sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
	(3) In paragraph 2, for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
	"(1) This paragraph applies if the Boundary Commission for Wales ("the Commission") provisionally determine (in pursuance of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act")) to recommend the making of alterations affecting any parliamentary constituencies in Wales.",.
	and, in sub-paragraph (2), for "Committee" substitute "Commission".
	(4) In paragraph 3—
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for "Committee have provisionally determined to propose" substitute "Commission have provisionally determined to make",
	(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), for "effect of the recommendations is" substitute "Commission propose to recommend",
	(c) in sub-paragraphs (2)(c), (3), (4) and (5), for "Committee" substitute "Commission", and
	(d) in sub-paragraph (6), for "Committee's" substitute "Commission's",
	and in the heading before that paragraph, for "Committee's" substitute "Commission's".
	(5) In paragraph 4—
	(a) in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for "Committee" substitute "Commission",
	(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for "Committee may not proceed with the proposed" substitute "Commission may not make the", and
	(c) in sub-paragraphs (4), (5) and (6), for "Committee" substitute "Commission".
	(6) Omit paragraphs 5 to 7.
	(7) In paragraph 10(1), after "effect" insert ", with or without modifications,".
	(8) Omit paragraph 11(3).
	(9) In paragraph 12—
	(a) in the definitions of "the 1986 Act" and "the Commission", for "1(2)(a)" substitute "2(1)", and
	(b) omit the definition of "the Committee"."
	Page 167, line 15, at end insert—

17A Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 has effect until the end of the initial period with the omission of paragraph (b) (and the word "or" before it)."
	Page 170, line 21, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 29 and insert—
	"24 (1) Any provision of an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (whether included by virtue of that section or, subject to sub-paragraph (3), any other enactment) which is in force immediately before the commencement of the repeal of that section by this Act continues to have effect after the commencement of that repeal as if it were a provision of an Order in Council under section 58.
	(2) Accordingly—
	(a) the reference in paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3"
	Page 170, line 34, at end insert ", and
	(b) the reference in paragraph 18(5) of Schedule 8 to an Order in Council under section 58 transferring a function of preparing accounts to the Welsh Ministers includes a reference to an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 which makes provision having that effect by virtue of this Schedule.
	(3) Any provision which—
	(a) is included in an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38) by virtue of section 155(2) of that Act (meaning of "Wales"), and
	(b) is in force at the time when this Act is passed,
	is to be treated after that time as if it were also contained in an order under subsection (3) of section 157 of this Act (having effect for the purposes of the definition of "Wales" in subsection (1) of that section)."
	Page 177, line 20, at end insert—
	
		
			  
			 "Section 68(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22), if exercised to amend or repeal any enactment contained in an Act. Power to confer functions on Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. 
			 Section 68(3) of that Act, if exercised to amend or repeal any enactment contained in an Act. Power to make provision relating to Ombudsman's functions and expenses." 
		
	
	Page 177, line 21, leave out "the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22)" and insert "that Act"
	Page 180, line 9, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Section 68(1) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22), unless exercised to amend or repeal any enactment contained in an Act. Power to confer functions on Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. 
			 Section 68(3) of that Act, unless exercised to amend or repeal any enactment contained in an Act. Power to make provision relating to Ombudsman's functions and expenses." 
		
	
	Page 182, line 25, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Section 38(3)(e) and (4)(b) and (c) of that Act. Power to make provision relating to destination of reports about maintained schools. 
			 Section 39(2)(a), (3), (5) and (7)(b) of that Act. Power to make provision relating to statement prepared by appropriate authority for school. 
			 Section 40(3)(a) of that Act. Power to make provision relating to statement prepared by local education authority. 
			 Section 41(4)(b) and (c) of that Act. Power to make provision relating to destination of reports about non-maintained schools. 
			 Section 42(2)(a), (3), (4) and (5)(b) of that Act. Power to make provision relating to statement prepared by proprietor of school." 
		
	
	Page 184, line 25, after "by" insert "or under"
	Page 191, line 4, at end insert—

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 199, line 32, column 2, at beginning insert—
	
		
			 "Section 12(9). 
			 Section 16(9). 
			 Section 21(11). 
			 Section 23(6). 
			 In section 24— 
			 (a)   in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the word "and" preceding it, and 
			 (b)   subsection (3)." 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.